Jump to content

us politics and elections thread


achilles return
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

The most well known challengers losing for last night's primaries wasn't surprising. Kucinich may have been better on the issues but there is no denying that he is... a bit off. Swearingen was also trying to push a boulder uphill by trying to displace an incumbent candidate who had much more money than her, but even then she still got more votes than any of the Republican candidates in their primary (lol).

Still got a bunch of local elections. We can pick off some House, Senate, and other seats but the most effective long term plan to displace the corporate establishment is to affect change at the local level first and build up the bench/name recognition from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

The most well known challengers losing for last night's primaries wasn't surprising. Kucinich may have been better on the issues but there is no denying that he is... a bit off. Swearingen was also trying to push a boulder uphill by trying to displace an incumbent candidate who had much more money than her, but even then she still got more votes than any of the Republican candidates in their primary (lol).

Still got a bunch of local elections. We can pick off some House, Senate, and other seats but the most effective long term plan to displace the corporate establishment is to affect change at the local level first and build up the bench/name recognition from there.

Kucinich was pro-Assad. :flush:

I told you Paula Jean was going to lose. She did better than I expected. I figured she would get around 20%. With better funding and support( I feel like only TYT and Justice Dems backed her), I think she could have made it more interesting or at least pushed Manchin to the left a little. 

Agree. Filling up the bench is going to be the most important, but you still have to convince voters to pick your candidates. Cordray, Pritzker, and Murphy have little governing experience. I still think working within the establishment is going to be the most successful plan as well as taking over state parties.  Cordray is hardly a corporatist and IronStache has establishment support. Establishment friendly progressives are going to go much further than the ones calling for a coup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Kucinich was pro-Assad. :flush:

I told you Paula Jean was going to lose. She did better than I expected. I figured she would get around 20%. With better funding and support( I feel like only TYT and Justice Dems backed her), I think she could have made it more interesting or at least pushed Manchin to the left a little. 

Agree. Filling up the bench is going to be the most important, but you still have to convince voters to pick your candidates. Cordray, Pritzker, and Murphy have little governing experience. I still think working within the establishment is going to be the most successful plan as well as taking over state parties.  Cordray is hardly a corporatist and IronStache has establishment support. Establishment friendly progressives are going to go much further than the ones calling for a coup. 

Never expected her to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Brehus said:

The irony for me is i am a independent that is left leaning on most issues but i cant vote democrat because they are the party of the gun control nuts. lol

 

chart.png

you do you, man

personally i find holding universal healthcare hostage because of insufficient deference to firearms pretty gross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

How is socialist Bernie going to get the unemployment rate below 3.9% with taking other people's money?  I'd like to hear this ingenious play that has never worked anywhere in the world.  

Unemployment Rate Hits 3.9%, a Rare Low, as Job Market Becomes More Competitive

The last time the unemployment rate remained below 4 percent for a sustained period was in the late 1960s.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

How is socialist Bernie going to get the unemployment rate below 3.9% with taking other people's money?  I'd like to hear this ingenious play that has never worked anywhere in the world.  

Unemployment Rate Hits 3.9%, a Rare Low, as Job Market Becomes More Competitive

The last time the unemployment rate remained below 4 percent for a sustained period was in the late 1960s.
 

Care to explain why unemployment rarely stays below 4% for long and what normally follows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Care to explain why unemployment rarely stays below 4% for long and what normally follows?

Answer the Bernie question first and I'll answer yours.  I like how we lay some truths on some of y'all and you come back with another question instead of answering our question.  Because you don't have an answer.  So tell me how Bernie is going to do this again without out taking everyone else's money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Answer the Bernie question first and I'll answer yours.  I like how we lay some truths on some of y'all and you come back with another question instead of answering our question.  Because you don't have an answer.  So tell me how Bernie is going to do this again without out taking everyone else's money?

what was the top marginal tax rate in the 1960s?

what was it in 1952, when unemployment dropped below 3%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Answer the Bernie question first and I'll answer yours.  I like how we lay some truths on some of y'all and you come back with another question instead of answering our question.  Because you don't have an answer.  So tell me how Bernie is going to do this again without out taking everyone else's money?

Your argument is that tax hikes will make unemployment go up while trying to compare the present unemployment rate to when it hit that mark in the 1960s... when tax rates were much higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, achilles return said:

what was the top marginal tax rate in the 1960s?

what was it in 1952, when unemployment dropped below 3%?

This is not answering the Bernie question.  

 

3 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Your argument is that tax hikes will make unemployment go up while trying to compare the present unemployment rate to when it hit that mark in the 1960s... when tax rates were much higher.

No, that Bernie is talking about massive tax hikes while promising the world. .  I want to know how that is done?  I mean that was like Obama promising to insure $30 million more people while cutting each one's individual cost by $2500.  Mathematically impossible...same with Bernie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

This is not answering the Bernie question.  

 

No, that Bernie is talking about massive tax hikes while promising the world. .  I want to know how that is done?  I mean that was like Obama promising to insure $30 million more people while cutting each one's individual cost by $2500.  Mathematically impossible...same with Bernie

i don't think i understand what you're asking. if it's "how can we raise taxes and have low unemployment?", then the answer is "well, it's pretty easy - we've done it several times, just look at the historical record". if the question is "how can we raise taxes while expanding public spending?", then the answer is - "uh, that's exactly how it should be done. society costs money."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

This is not answering the Bernie question.  

 

No, that Bernie is talking about massive tax hikes while promising the world. .  I want to know how that is done?  I mean that was like Obama promising to insure $30 million more people while cutting each one's individual cost by $2500.  Mathematically impossible...same with Bernie

Not really. Your attempted point is that higher taxes leads to higher unemployment. Historical data, including the unemployment in the 1960s that you brought up, does not support that argument. But I'll humor you:

Obama's problem was that his attempted solution was to try to prop up a failed private market. Health insurance, especially the for profit variety, is an obsolete industry that can only survive at this point thanks to government intervention. It would be easier, and much cheaper, to simply kill that industry and replace it with public health insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...